[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

Sam Goldstein sam.goldstein at lp.org
Wed Jan 17 08:04:00 EST 2018


David, 

The EC passed the TN ballot encumbrance based on the plan presented by
Wes for tiered release of LNC monies per TN's ability to comply with the
plan.  This plan was in line with the budget proviso we passed requiring
states to participate in their own ballot access process.  We also
discussed a request from MA that was postponed to a future EC meeting
pending further review.

---
Sam Goldstein
Libertarian National Committee
317-850-0726 Cell 

On 2018-01-17 06:06, David Demarest wrote:

> Disregarding the proposed motion, the last few posts appear to be taking this discussion of a difficult social issue in the healthier direction of an actual examination of the sensitive details that government legal misadventures have muddied the waters on and obscured. This is where we should have been in the first place before the opportunistic pyrotechnics ensued. 
> 
> As to the proposed motion under construction, Ms. Mattson's reference to a circular firing squad is highly appropriate. This circus is self-defeating and self-destructive. Upon reconsideration, I will not legitimatize this lynch-mob usurpation of delegate responsibilities any further by participating in a vote. 
> 
> What's next? I had to drop before the end of the Executive Committee ballot access encumbrance conference call for another meeting. What was the outcome of the vote on the Tennessee ballot access initiative? 
> 
> On Jan 17, 2018 4:18 AM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:
> 
> <CAH>  Where I think your statements are not an accurate representation of Vohra's arguments Alicia is that he was not arguing for proxy consent.  He was not arguing that families and culture could GIVE consent, he was arguing that they are in the best position to RECOGNIZE consent. </CAH>
> 
> What is meant by statements like, "I don't believe that the government has any place in individual, sexual decisionmaking. Family, culture, and the individuals involved are the only people who should have any say of any kind."
> 
> If the child is capable of understanding the situation and consenting, why does the family and culture have a role in the individual decision making at all?  To suggest that the family and culture have a role in the "individual" decision, the implication is that the child isn't otherwise capable of making an informed decision on their own and needs someone else to help them.  If that's the case, the answer should be a firm no, not a yes at the option of the family/culture.
> 
> -Alicia
> 
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:24 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> 
> That has been a historical position in the Party - and an internal dispute.  And for the LNC to specific argue that a government is needed is purposefully saying that a common anarchist view is grounds for removal. That is absolutely unacceptable. 
> 
> Also, in the historical progression of the planks on children's rights and consent, the word adult has been consistently used, but it is obvious from the history and contexts that it was not used to indicate NECESSARILY some decree of the state and a state definition of adulthood (which could change tomorrow) but on adulthood as characterization as no longer have those rights in custodianship of parents, having obtained the necessary development and understanding and responsibility to exercise those choices.  Any other interpretation would be to argue that the prior platforms called for violations of children, in contradiction to the Statement of Principles. 
> 
> It is not our job to rule on internal disputes that have existed since the beginning.  All Libertarians agree on the issue of consent.  And that consent requires ability to consent.  The disagreement has been precisely when that happens - and no matter how uncomfortable that makes any of us - it is the reality of the history of this debate and HOW is that determined.  Some Libertarians argue for clear legal proceedings of emancipation.  What we clearly are NOT arguing for is rape, abuse, or predation.   
> 
> We have NO authority to author a resolution favouring one side or another in an internal dispute.  Put it before the delegates at convention to make a resolution.  That is not our job. 
> 
> This is a serious issue and we cannot allow it to be used, purposefully for not, for advancing one factional interest over another. 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> 
> This is a quote from an email I sent to a region 1 chair two days ago.  Also LPCO made it CLEAR they were not alleging a platform violation in their discussions. 
> 
> ==== 
> 
> My exact cause would be repeated inappropriate and reckless conduct bringing the Party, it's candidates, and it's principles into disrepute. 
> 
> I think the cause needs to be stated so that there is no ideological gaming in the Party - this isn't about some clear departure from a libertarian item but about irresponsibility from an officer. 
> 
> As I said directly to Arvin, no you are not a martyr for being "too libertarian" I hold the same radical anarchist creed - it's not too libertarian, it's much jackass.  No discernment or discretion.===== 
> 
> So my proposed language for cause would be: 
> 
> WHEREAS, BYLAW ARTICLE 6.7 STATES THAT THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE MAY, FOR CAUSE, SUSPEND ANY OFFICER BY A VOTE OF 2/3 OF THE ENTIRE NATIONAL COMMITTEE; 
> 
> WHEREAS, VICE-CHAIR ARVIN VOHRA HAS ENGAGED IN REPEATED INAPPROPRIATE AND RECKLESS CONDUCT BRINGING THE PARTY, ITS CANDIDATES, AND IT'S PRINCIPLES INTO DISREPUTE; 
> 
> WHEREAS, VICE-CHAIR ARVIN VOHRA HAS DEALT WITH THE SUBJECT OF CHILDREN AND CONSENT IN A MANNER THAT HAS DISPLAYED CALLOUS DISREGARD AND ACTIVELY GIVEN AN IMPRESSION THROUGH HIS WORDS THAT PREDATORY BEHAVIOUR BY ADULTS IS NOT A SPECIFIC RISK INEVITABLY TIED TO THE BIOLOGICAL FACTS OF MATURITY AND DEVELOPMENT; 
> 
> WHEREAS, VICE CHAIR ARVIN VOHRA EQUATED A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF FULLY CONSENSUAL AND VOLUNTARY SEXUAL RELATIONS AMONGST ADULT MEN WHO HAVE HISTORICALLY SUFFERED THE WRONGFUL ASSOCIATION WITH PREDATORS WITH THAT OF A TEENAGER AND A PARTNER AT LEAST TEN YEARS THEIR SENIOR IN WHICH THERE IS A CLEAR POSSIBILITY OF NON-CONSENT OR PREDATION; 
> 
> Whereas, this is merely the latest episode of Mr. Vohra making particularly inflammatory and insulting remarks, destructively stereotyping party members and large segments of the population,  a behavior completely at odds with our Party's philosophy of recognizing and treating people as individuals and recognizing that the ultimate problem is government aggression, not other victims of its aggression; and
> 
> WHEREAS, THIS PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR HAS CAUSED SUCH WIDE-SPREAD OFFENSE THAT IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THE LNC, ITS COMMITTEES, AND PARTY AFFILIATES TO FOCUS ON PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES; 
> 
> Therefore, be it resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee suspends Arvin Vohra for cause from his position as LNC Vice Chair. 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:44 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
> 
> Alicia I would not agree to that language. 
> 
> 1. I don't think it is accurate in stating what he said.  And I don't think it is accurate in what the plank is intended.  This isn't a platform issue.  Making it so 
> is a shot across the bow and wil make it about being "too libertarian" and fracture us.  I do not think the two states in Region 1 would agree to that either. 
> 
> It factionalizes.   
> 
> 2. It is much more than that.  It is reckless lack of judgment and harmful messaging. 
> 
> 4. It is an argument for the state. 
> 
> And I would hope that would never pass the JC. 
> 
> I would propose something much simpler and something we should ALL be able to agree upon. 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:22 AM Elizabeth Van Horn <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote: 
> 
> Alicia, and everyone else too, 
> 
> Help me understand this process here.  The cause written below would be attached with the motion?  For the purpose of following the language where it says, "The National Committee may, for cause..."?
> 
> If so, then this looks appropriate. As, for me, it's not a particular action or statement of Arvin's, but the systemic long-time damage to the state affiliates (and recently even candidates) to conduct LP work, recruit, and go about the business of being a viable political entity. 
> 
> ---
> Elizabeth Van Horn
> 
> On 2018-01-17 03:06, Alicia Mattson wrote: 
> 
> After spending time reading through the actual comments in question, I am willing to co-sponsor a motion for suspension.  I think this is a situation where it's a good idea to explain the cause in writing, since we wish to distance ourselves from a particular situation.  I've drafted the following language for consideration.  If there are ways to improve it, I'm open to hearing suggestions.
> 
> -Alicia
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> Whereas, Bylaw Article 6.7 states that the National Committee may, for cause, suspend any officer by a vote of 2/3 of the entire National Committee; 
> 
> Whereas, the Party's platform plank on Personal Relationships states that, "Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships;" 
> 
> Whereas, the Party's platform plank on Parental Rights states that, "Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect;" 
> 
> Whereas, children are particularly vulnerable members of society; 
> 
> Whereas, Arvin Vohra, at times even using his title as LNC Vice Chair, has repeatedly made public statements downplaying the harm of sexual relationships between adults and children, and advocating allowing families (or "their culture") to somehow grant sexual consent on behalf of children; 
> 
> Whereas, Mr. Vohra's actions have the effect of damaging and dissuading the campaigns of Libertarians who do believe in the limitations embodied by these Party Platform planks; 
> 
> Whereas, this is merely the latest episode of Mr. Vohra making particularly inflammatory and insulting remarks, destructively stereotyping party members and large segments of the population - such as veterans and school teachers - a behavior completely at odds with our Party's philosophy of recognizing and treating people as individuals; and 
> 
> Whereas, this pattern of behavior has caused such wide-spread offense that it makes it difficult for the LNC, its committees, and Party affiliates to focus on productive activities; 
> 
> Therefore, be it resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee suspends Arvin Vohra for cause from his position as LNC Vice Chair. 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:
> 
> I think merely including "for cause" in the motion would be sufficient, and I haven't found a RONR provision which says the nature of the cause has to be explained in the motion.
> 
> It may, however, be a good idea to explain for the record what the cause is, especially when an organization wants to distance itself from public statements it disagrees with.
> 
> Regarding Caryn Ann's question about whether RONR requires that we have a trial under Chapter 20 procedures, I've heard this question come up before, and I've seen a written opinion from a member of the RONR authorship team which explained that the Chapter 20 protocol is the default, but when an organization takes the step of writing a different bylaws provision about removal, that serves to override the Chapter 20 default process.
> 
> -Alicia
> 
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
> On the parliamentary question:
> 
> If there is going to be an email ballot, the motion would at least
> need to say "for cause" and would be better to state with clarity what
> the cause is, since there is only the option for members to vote for
> or against it without the potential for amendment.  Members should be
> aware that there is an appellate procedure in the case of a suspension
> and that an appellate body would generally be looking to whether the
> appropriate procedure has been followed in deciding whether to
> overturn a suspension.
> 
> In the case of a call for an electronic meeting, the subject of
> suspension would be sufficient to call the meeting, with cause being
> able to be discussed, debated, and attached to any final motion before
> voting.  As a note, it requires 1/3 of the committee to request an
> electronic meeting, so it requires six members to request, not the
> four that are required for an email ballot.
> 
> -Nick
> 
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> 
> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>> I have several concerns here.
>> 
>> And to point out one detail for party members reporting on this incident who
>> - inadvertantly I am sure - omitted the fact that I personally - a radical
>> anarchist - am willing to co-sponsor this motion, thus making four, but only
>> have not because I am awaiting the go ahead from my region.  I don't need a
>> 2/3 to just co-sponsor, and I am getting more comfortable with it now that
>> two of my states are in favour of removal.  CO and WA may have a decision
>> soon.  And in reflecting on this, I am seeing my way clear to co-sponsor as
>> long as some of my states believe it needs a hearing.  That protects
>> minority voices.
>> 
>> This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart.  But then again,
>> Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit for tat, I
>> can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout is fair play.
>> We need to stop that culture.  Now.
>> 
>> But to my concerns.  I have been reading more in RONR and I think the motion
>> is improper for the reasons I stated before.  It must state a cause.
>> Further, I do not think it CAN be handled by email, and I think it MUST (if
>> it has enough co-sponsors - or at a meeting - a second) take the form of a
>> trial - in executive session.  I don't like secret sessions but that is my
>> reading of RONR, and it doesn't seem like it can be suspended - though it
>> seems that the subject of the discipline could waive that.
>> 
>> I would like the Chair to weigh in on my objection to this Motion as being
>> out of order without a stated cause.  That being said, I do have some
>> proposed cause language.
>> 
>> Members reading this.  Do not allow anyone to put you into a mentality of
>> purging anyone.  Moderate, Radical, or otherwise.  Our binding factor is the
>> Statement of Principles.  Inciting a hate movement against Johnson
>> supporters is counterprodutive and just flat out wrong.  The same is true
>> for Party radicals and anarchists.  This is insane.
>> 
>> -Caryn Ann
>> 
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> One of my states has requested the "cause" language for consideration.
>>> 
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I spoke with the Chair of HI.  She supports removal.  Region 1: Utah
>>>> (no); Arizona (recused entirely); Alaska (yes); Hawaii (yes).
>>>> 
>>>> Some may object that I have influenced some with my personal opinion.  I
>>>> don't have that much power.  But this is where the issue of us being elected
>>>> for our insight and judgment comes into play - the Chairs want my advice.
>>>> They can take it or not, but they want it.  And I advise them on how to
>>>> protect their own state if the LNC does nothing.  That is my job.
>>>> 
>>>> As promised, this is what Alaska wrote to me:
>>>> 
>>>> After discussion with our state board, it is our view that Arvin Vohra
>>>> should be removed from the position of Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party.
>>>> On an intellectual level, some logic may exist in his arguments, however the
>>>> topics and conclusions he forwards repeatedly result in discredit to the LP.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> This cannot continue.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Our leaders must be ambassadors as well as philosophers.  One role cannot
>>>> exist at the expense of the other.  The LP is not a hermetic association for
>>>> the advanced study of arcane philosophical concepts, but a political
>>>> organization with the intent to guide and influence our government and
>>>> citizenry.  All political correctness aside, earning the credibility to do
>>>> this comes at the cost of tailoring our message to our audience, the
>>>> American people.  Mr. Vohra does not, or perhaps cannot understand this
>>>> fundamental constraint.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> FYI - LPCO has an open email list.  Its time we heard the voices of our
>>>>> members - anyone can follow their discussion
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-business/kPps5ugbr1A [1]
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>>>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you Joshua, I am flattered that some of my words were persuasive.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Let me argue more in favour of a meeting.  If this motion got four
>>>>>> co-sponsors and went to email vote, I am not going to have full word from
>>>>>> region 1 in ten days.  Not gonna happen.  So even though I suspect they will
>>>>>> not favour, this guarantees that there will be no region 1 support.  A
>>>>>> meeting can give more time and can allow me to let the region know they can
>>>>>> attend for public comment.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (states have told me that they have to wait for a board meeting).  I
>>>>>> have three definite responses.  AZ asked to be recused.  AK is in favour of
>>>>>> suspension (and I will be forwarding their missive to me here).  UT opposes.
>>>>>> The CO chair supports but the rest of the Board has not weighed in (FYI I
>>>>>> recused myself from the LPCO Board discussion).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Joshua Katz
>>>>>> <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have stated my preference for an electronic meeting.  I also said in
>>>>>>> that email that this is the second time this has come up, and it needs a
>>>>>>> full hearing.  Since then, I have read emails from Ms. Harlos and from Mr.
>>>>>>> Sharpe which have called some of my beliefs on this topic into question.  I
>>>>>>> still am strongly inclined to vote no, but I have been convinced that
>>>>>>> consideration is due.  I believe motions get clearer and better
>>>>>>> consideration when they are actually pending - there is a difference,
>>>>>>> psychologically, between speaking in general, and speaking on a precise
>>>>>>> motion.  (On a side note, I agree with Ms. Harlos that this motion would be
>>>>>>> better if it specified the cause, although I do not think this is
>>>>>>> necessary.)  Therefore, I will cosponsor.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> However, I am cosponsoring on the following understanding, and I ask
>>>>>>> the Secretary to correct me if my understanding is incorrect.  According to
>>>>>>> RONR, the maker of a motion may not speak against it in debate (but may vote
>>>>>>> against it), but the seconder may speak against it in debate.  Our email
>>>>>>> ballots generally list everyone who wished to see the motion, the original
>>>>>>> maker and the cosponsors, as "cosponsors."  That notwithstanding, it is my
>>>>>>> understanding that a cosponsor is in the position of a seconder and may
>>>>>>> speak in debate against the motion.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>>>>> <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I make a motion to suspend Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice
>>>>>>>> Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ___________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Three of the four state affiliate chairs in Region 3 are now backing
>>>>>>>> this motion. I told Region 3 that I'd need at least 3/4 of the region in
>>>>>>>> accord to make the motion to suspend Arvin.  That percent was reached last
>>>>>>>> night.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> When I volunteered my time and energy to be a Regional Rep on the
>>>>>>>> LNC, I didn't do it under the circumstances of, "only if convenient".
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'm doing this because I care about giving a voice to the many LP
>>>>>>>> members who are running for office, getting out the vote, and spending their
>>>>>>>> hard-earned money working toward electing libertarians.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> These are the people that make up the Libertarian Party. It is their
>>>>>>>> voice that I represent.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So, it is with calm resolve that I make this motion.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>>>>>> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
>>>>>>>> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
>>>>>>>> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
>>>>>>>> Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
>>>>>>>> http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [2]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [2]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [2]
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [2]

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [2]
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [2] 
_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business [2]

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business 

Links:
------
[1]
https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21topic/lpco-open-business/kPps5ugbr1A
[2] http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180117/5a9dffa6/attachment.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list